While the Limtiaco v. Camacho is about taxes. The background is what is important to note. The governor wanted the bonds, the state attorney refused to authorize the bonds.
So what the SCOTUS was basically asked was to interpret tax law in guam and decide who had authority in the matter reguarding the bonds. It wasn't a matter of declaring law unconstitutional or not. It was a matter of interpreting tax law and deciding who had authority in regards to issing certain bonds.
Now there were also a lot of other fun issues that dealt with this. You mentioned the Ninth Circuit court. That touches on issues between the Guam supreme court and the Ninth circuit. There is also the 90 day window thrown in there.
The recent ruling of Massachusetts v. EPA was also a clarification of authority.
So when people say the courts shouldn't legislate from the bench. They really don't tend to understand the courts. Kathyp mentioned the president ablity to issue executive orders as constitutional. However there is no United States Constitution provision or statute that explicitly permits this, aside from the vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section 3.
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer basically forced presidents to cite the law they were acting under when issing executive orders.
The constitution sometimes doesn't spell out things word for word but the SCOTUS has made it very clear what the law means. The below is from an article describing one's right to privacy even though it isn't spelled out word for word in the constitutuion.
The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630, as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life."* We recently referred
Page 381 U.S. 479, 485
in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 656, to the Fourth Amendment as creating a "right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully and particularly reserved to the people." See Beaney, The Constitutional Right to Privacy, 1962 Sup. Ct. Rev. 212; Griswold, The Right to be Let Alone, 55 Nw. U. L. Rev. 216 (1960).
The association of people is not mentioned in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights. The right to educate a child in a school of the parents' choice - whether public or private or parochial - is also not mentioned. Nor is the right to study any particular subject or any foreign language. Yet the First Amendment has been construed to include certain of those rights.
By Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra, the right to educate one's children as one chooses is made applicable to the States by the force of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. By Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, the same dignity is given the right to study the German language in a private school. In other words, the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge. The right of freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to read (Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143) and freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach (see Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 195) - indeed the freedom of the entire university community.